Living in a soon-to-be AI-driven Society (within 15 yrs)

[Mossling]

Lol, you guys sound like a couple of Catholic oldskoolers at the beginning of the scientific revolution.

A big whale or an elephant have way more neurons in their bodies than humans do, so why do we 'own' this planet that we're on?

Not because of brain power as much as our ADAPTABILITY.

The system changes, power shifts, and we stay standing on our surfboards lookin cool ~ well, those of us who prioritise that dimension of our species, anyway....

I'd say that AI is perhaps a lesser worry when polar bears are invading Russia and a giant iceberg twice the size of NYC is about to break loose and float away...

[BadgerJelly]

Moss -

Well, we are living at the beginning of the first truly global revolution. It is kind of a big deal.

The things that concern me the most are actually being dealt with relatively successfully so I’m quite positive about the future in that respect - but given the rate of change due to technological developments I am certainly wary about where we might end up.

Anyway, I’m just some relatively dumb nobody doing my tiny part as best I can. I’m more excited about the future than worried about it - but hopefully not naive enough to shoot myself in the foot! :)

As for elephants and whales ... quality not quantity! Elephants and whales are basically ignorant compared to you and me.

[Serpent]

Lol, you guys sound like a couple of Catholic oldskoolers at the beginning of the scientific revolution.

A big whale or an elephant have way more neurons in their bodies than humans do, so why do we 'own' this planet that we're on?

Not because of brain power as much as our ADAPTABILITY.

The system changes, power shifts, and we stay standing on our surfboards lookin cool ~ well, those of us who prioritise that dimension of our species, anyway....

I'd say that AI is perhaps a lesser worry when polar bears are invading Russia and a giant iceberg twice the size of NYC is about to break loose and float away...

What's the number of neurons got to do with anything?
Even the coolest-looking surfer can wipe out.
Putting adaptability in all caps doesn't answer any of the legitimate questions, and comparing one product of the industrial revolution to another in severity of outcome is even less helpful.

[Mossling]

ADAPTABILITY

lol, yes that is all that is needed here.

Joking aside, what I was trying to point you towards was an evolutionary 'unconscious' factor that is responsible for the human success we see all over the planet and which is now travelling to other planets - something no other organism we know of is capable of doing.

And so I think you can trust that unconscious process here - that we WILL adapt and rebalance ourselves no matter the terrestrial challenges that face us. Not even extra-terrestrial challenges, though considerable, will obstruct us, as we make more space stations and more and more ventures further afield.

There are too many factors to model at present concerning the future, however, and when the balance will tip - towards fruit-picking robots replacing whole workforces and vehicles' sensors being powerful enough to be reliable on 'autopilot,' and so on... so I think it's pointless to speculate too much ~ and especially pointless to speculate based on current infrastructure solutions.

But two things are seemingly for sure:

1) Automation will continue to increase.
2) Significant numbers of jobs will be lost and not replaced.

[Serpent]

But two things are seemingly for sure:

1) Automation will continue to increase.
2) Significant numbers of jobs will be lost and not replaced.

Obviously.
And you think this unconscious adaptability (I.e. trust in providence and do nothing) is a better response than making plans to deal with the problems that we know will arise next week, next month and next year... because the long-range outcome is unpredictable (too complicated to bother about) and somebody will probably survive, so it'll all turn out all right ... because the horrific mistakes we made in the past made us capable of ever more destructive mistakes (success) .
All right then. LOL.

[Mossling]

trust in providence and do nothing

That's not how Homo sapiens has survived so long and successfully, is it?

And planning is not the main way, for example, stockbrokers get rich, is it?

[Serpent]

trust in providence and do nothing

That's not how Homo sapiens has survived so long and successfully, is it?

Yes, it is.
By long, you mean a couple of hundred thousand years, which is hardly any time at all in evolutionary terms.
https://www.universetoday.com/38125/how-long-have-humans-been-on-earth/
By successful do you mean what pathogenic bacteria celebrate the night before their host dies?

And planning is not the main way, for example, stockbrokers get rich, is it?

Bingo! One more, even greater depression coming up!

Do you really have no perspective at all?

[Mossling]

Lol, well, enjoy your pessimism. My glass is half full :)

[Serpent]

It's not a question of pessimism or optimism.
Trust in God (if you must) but keep your powder dry.
One can be optimistic and still take some precautions against foreseeable calamity, instead of rushing headlong into it... because I haven't died yet, which proves I'm immortal.

[Mossling]

take some precautions against foreseeable calamity

Yes, optimism is a good precaution I think.

[Serpent]

Yes, optimism is a good precaution I think.

As a smile makes an effective umbrella.
Good luck.

[Mossling]

Yes, optimism is a good precaution I think.

As a smile makes an effective umbrella.
Good luck.

optimism increases confidence, and increased confidence leads to more successes. Just as any pick-up artist ;P haha, but it does have logic behind it.

[Serpent]

However you colour it, illusion is no substitute for information; faith is no substitute for rational thought; luck is no substitute for foresight; confidence is no substitute for competence.
But they're sure easier!

[Mossling]

However you colour it, illusion is no substitute for information; faith is no substitute for rational thought; luck is no substitute for foresight;

From where I'm standing, pessimism is a perspective based on illusion, whilst my optimism seems rational.

confidence is no substitute for competence.

No one has asserted that, but confidence resulting from optimism can certainly increase one's competence! There are numerous studies to prove that. 'Lion whisperers' even make it the cornerstone of their success. A pessimistic attitude is the difference between an alive person and a dead person when facing a large cat because they can smell your fear.

Now translate that to your broader social situation - where there are cheaters, bullies, and psychopaths, and realize why optimism is a healthy attitude to cultivate.

Anyway, we're veering off topic. The point I wanted to make is that you have the power to cultivate outcomes, and by fearing intelligent technology you cause it to affect you negatively, because fear causes anxiety and at a certain point anxiety triggers the stress response, which injects cortisol into one's blood stream, which if continues to be present for long stretches is highly toxic and causes a broad range of health issues.

Don't let the tech 'terminate' you before it has even appeared ;P

[Serpent]

Anyway, we're veering off topic. The point I wanted to make is that you have the power to cultivate outcomes, and by fearing intelligent technology you cause it to affect you negatively, because fear causes anxiety and at a certain point anxiety triggers the stress response, which injects cortisol into one's blood stream, which if continues to be present for long stretches is highly toxic and causes a broad range of health issues.

It's got to be some sophisticated, specialized robot that can analyze the chemical content of evaporating sweat and then correlate the result with human emotional states. Most of them can't, and in any case, would not be attracted or repelled or in any way influenced by that analysis. Nor does the anxiety or confidence of any one person - other than perhaps a CEO or major investor - toward industry affect - cultivate? - the outcome of production and distribution. So what's the relevance?
Why are you talking about pessimism and fear, optimism and cats and all this mumbo, when the topic is automation?

Relevant questions:
What are the economic factors that will affect the course of industrial automation?
What is the foreseeable, measurable, statistically predictable timeline?
What will be effects on employment over 10 years, 20 years and 30 years?
What will be the social consequences of the change in employment?
What will be the economic consequences?
How will industry change? How will governance change? How will demographics change?
All of these factors can be assessed and plotted in several ways, taking into account the major variables of which we already know - like population increase and displacements, climate change, resource depletion and environmental degradation.

Next, we ask:
Can we mitigate the most severe predictable disruptions?
Which is the most desirable of the possible scenarios in our calculation?
Can we plot a course from where we are to the most desirable of those predicted outcomes?
What steps must we take now, in five years, in ten years, in twenty years to stay on that course?
What regulations, funds and taxes should governments enact?
What adjustments and long-term procedures can industry put in place?
How can educational institutions prepare a population of the future?
How should communication media prepare a population for the future?
A great many sensible and executable measures might be proposed, might be discussed, might be initiated.

Or, you can just say:
Cheer up; smell good for the lions and in a thousand years it won't matter anyway.

[Mossling]

Restaurants are now employing robots – should chefs be worried?
The Guardian, Thu 7 Mar 2019

In an industry keen to slash labour costs and increase profits, further automation seems inevitable. After an eight-month test at Kang Nam Tofu House in California, Bear Robotics credited Penny with driving a 28% increase in sales. Meanwhile, in US trials, the self-ordering screens that McDonald’s is currently installing at its 1,300 UK restaurants yielded a reported 30% rise in order values.
[...]
Companies such as Domino and Just Eat have both experimented with robot and drone delivery, which is already legal in Reykjavík, Iceland. “Robot food deliveries are the future,” says Sharkey. “Small, 4mph ground-robots are safe and will work 24 hours a day.”

[TheVat]

Skype founder studies the Singularity and how we should prepare for superintelligent computers.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ingularity

[Serpent]

Industry doesn't care. Financial speculators don't care. Stockholders don't care.
Just like the restauranteur who thinks he'll make profit by firing the chef, next door to a dry cleaner who makes more profit by firing the staff, across the the street from the supermarket that's installed automatic checkouts, a block from the factory that's already fired all the employees to make more profit...
With all those people unemployed, who do they think is going to buy their product?

None of these short-sighted people will install sophisticated safeguards that might impeded the productivity of their robots, or slow down their global transactions.
The eggheads are just being pessimistic: the banker's glass is overflowing.

(PS having six kids doesn't sound all that perspicacious... but that's just me.)

[Mossling]

Last paragraph of that article:

People get overly preoccupied with what superintelligent AI is, Tallinn said. What form will it take? Should we worry about a single AI taking over, or an army of them? “From our perspective, the important thing is what AI does,” he stressed. And that, he believes, may still be up to humans – for now.

So people can indeed program some nano-goo to hoover up carbon and reproduce itself until the whole planet is covered in the stuff - sure, just like a scientist can create a bioweapon virus that could wreak global havoc. Perhaps the divide between bioengineering and ai-driven machines is just becoming finer and finer. It doesn't seem the general threat is particularly new.

I still maintain that in the absence of an analog grasp on infinity, then AI will forever be limited in its potential, and true consciousness will always have the edge over it, no matter the computing power. But that is perhaps a topic for another thread.

Meanwhile, here's the latest FedEx 'employee' solution, which popped up before a youtube video that I watched today:



Lol, it's pretty much R2D2. But it's probably just going to be the 'brick phone' of the robot age, isn't it:



With Gundam type creations roaming the streets within a few decades ;P

A South Korean robotics company just built a real Gundam
engadget.com, 12.27.16

[Mossling]

Google's world-first drone delivery business wins approval in Canberra
The Guardian, 9th April 2019

drone delivery of food and drinks, medication and locally-made coffee and chocolate.

That's one less lorry driver clogging up the road and one less pilot risking his life....

Ahh, good old science.

[TheVat]

Wonder if it will scare away birds. "OMG, a giant hawk-thing descending upon us!"

[PaulN]

Here is something we should be squawking about.....

It’s a welcome trend for some younger people.

“Currently, Millennials — those who were born after 1980 — are prime consumers. This generation tends to not like meeting other people, so they favor ... technology that enables people to minimize face-to-face interactions with others,” said Suh, the business school dean.

At a recently opened unmanned jeans store — LAB101 — in the trendy Seoul neighborhood of Hongdae a heavy iron door opens automatically when visitors swipe their credit cards in a machine beside the entrance.

The 24/7 denim shop lets customers try on jeans and pay using a self-service digital system without having to deal with sales staff, though sometimes technical glitches can pose a problem.

“I can freely look around and try on jeans as much as I like without being bothered,” said Kim Kun Woo, 29.

https://apnews.com/ccb243ac19c64c0cbf22cd9c8dd99e5f

" Robot baristas are latest front in S. Korea automation push "
By JUNG YOON KIM
(AP)

[Serpent]

“Currently, Millennials — those who were born after 1980 — are prime consumers. This generation tends to not like meeting other people, so they favor ... technology that enables people to minimize face-to-face interactions with others,” said Suh, the business school dean.

Are these the same millennials wailing about how they can't get jobs?

[Mossling]

The five: robot farmers
The Guardian, 2 Jun 2019

Last week a startup based at Plymouth University unveiled the world’s first raspberry-picking robot. The machine can pick about 25,000 berries a day, which is 10,000 more than a human during an eight-hour shift.
[...]
Last month farming startup Iron Ox began selling salad partly farmed by robots at a store in California. Its farm features robotic picking, self-driving pallet transporters and hydroponic growing vats. Humans are still required for tasks such as planting seeds and packaging the salad.
[...]
Last year Swiss company Ecorobotix raised $11m (£8.5m) in funding to develop a weeding robot. Its prototype bot is powered entirely by sunlight, can work for 12 hours a day and, the company claims, reduces herbicide use by 90%.
[...]
The FarmBot is a domestic robot that can be used to cultivate produce on a raised plot remotely. Its owner designs and controls the plot using a drag and drop web app.
[...]
In February this year Waitrose began a three-year trial with Portsmouth-based Small Robot Company. Working in a wheat field in Hampshire, its robots, named Tom, Dick and Harry, will plant seeds, create plant-by-plant maps of fields and kill weeds with lasers.

Onwards and upwards!

There's no point resisting this stuff - it's just the usual innovation in the name of efficiency. Why use a teaspoon when you can use a shovel?

[BadgerJelly]

5G is going to decrease manual labour like never nothing we’ve seen since the industrial revolution.

[Lozza]

AI...a dumb idea by bright people.

The very thing that has given employment to so many, is the inefficiencies of small and medium business in contrast to the economies of scale that big business has, as well as the labour intensive jobs that have traditionally existed. Bad enough that big business is making small and medium business impossible to exist, but now they want to automate and eliminate as many humans in the system as possible in order to maximize profits.

And what slays me even further, is the fact that the reason these big businesses have gotten so big, has been because of full employment that has bought all of the goods, chattels and services that big business sells.

Currently, it's only about 5% of the workforce that big business employs. The rest is government and medium to small business. It is inevitable that medium and small businesses will disappear completely, as they just can no longer compete. That means that it will be virtually only government departments and big business that will be the employers of the future, with big business getting more and more automated, requiring less and less people. Depending upon the country you live in, the government employs somewhere between 20-40% of the workforce, with those figures fluctuating depending upon the policies of the government of the day (our figures rose to the gov employing 60% at one stage, but that was relatively short-lived), generally it's around the 30%-40% mark.

So that means, if we make it a generous 50% that the government employs, we're left with big business who employs a diminishing 5%, leaving 45% unemployed, and rising. However, I sincerely doubt that governments will be employing 50%, but far less.

So, with the only people left with a disposable income being government and big business employees, I'm lost at how THAT sounds like a good idea for humanity. AI, what a great idea!....if I don't understand the economics of employment!

Enter the UBI...you can survive, but can't live well. Poverty for all. The prospect of financial poverty lies in our future...you will survive, but won't live well unless you are one of the lucky few to have a job or are involved in a black market....why do you think they're legalizing marijuana? Two good reasons; They want to kill as many black markets as possible beforehand; as well as have something to placate the masses...a bong (or if you read Aldous Huxley's book, Brave New World, "soma"). Not forgetting the 3rd and most obvious reason of income for big business and income in the form of taxes for government. Everything has been thought of beforehand.

Anyone trying to say AI is a good idea, either has a vested interest, or is a fool, for it bodes badly for humanity.

It's not the idea of AI per se that's bad, it's the cost-saving implementation of it that will be used and will destroy society and the financial prospects of our children and their children. It's just plainly inevitable. But then, I may as well try and explain to a 15 year old at MacDonald's that their job of directing me to an electronic menu is guaranteeing them no job in the future...I know I'll just get a dull stare with the predictable, "Oh no! THIS is my job!" Yeah, but only for 5 minutes, then it vanishes as everyone becomes familiar with the electronic menu. AI is no different.

We should be looking for ways to disempower big business, not ways to further empower it. And that's the only thing AI can do...further empower big business.

[Mossling]

However, I sincerely doubt that governments will be employing 50%, but far less.

Well, if UBI is taken as a kind of 'salary' to keep the population on 'standby' - to stand in, if need be, during a war, or virus-caused tech breakdown epidemic, or whatever, then it'll be more than 50%.

Enter the UBI...you can survive, but can't live well. Poverty for all. The prospect of financial poverty lies in our future...you will survive, but won't live well unless you are one of the lucky

Who knows - I guess it depends on what the definition of a happy life is? Watching endless porn videos and smoking pot until one loses one's grip on reality? Or hiking in the countryside and enjoying sunsets? These latter sources of health and peaceful joy are, as it happens, completely free.

Anyone trying to say AI is a good idea, either has a vested interest, or is a fool, for it bodes badly for humanity.

Lol. It's just technology - can be used for good and for bad, just like any other. Why are you using a computer? Shouldn't you be laboring on an Amish farm somewhere? ;P

[Lozza]

However, I sincerely doubt that governments will be employing 50%, but far less.

Well, if UBI is taken as a kind of 'salary' to keep the population on 'standby' - to stand in, if need be, during a war, or virus-caused tech breakdown epidemic, or whatever, then it'll be more than 50%.

Oh, for joy, for joy! So, as long as there's a war zone to send troops to, a pandemic or (you left out civil unrest) rioting, whereby extra police or troops are needed to be employed by the government, the introduction of AI is fine. Well that's just dandy logic, isn't it? In order to achieve greater than 50% employment, we just need civil unrest, a pandemic or a continuous war needing continuous troops, just so you can have your Star Trek toy(s). Clearly, you'll be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for that rationale alone, won't you, Capt Kirk?

I understand all too well how they have described the UBI, as I also know all too well that descriptions and justifications of such things from a politician's mouth is nothing but crap, and it will be used to initially create a "livable" wage, but in time, will decrease, just as wages and salaries haven't kept pace with inflation since 1977, the UBI won't either, as the inflation and employment figures are rubbish anyway, painting a false picture of low inflation and high employment, when the opposite for both categories is the truth. If the government says the UBI is a good thing, you can guarantee that they will perverse the concept and use it for their own agendas, not our benefit.

And that's before we get to Big Business reluctantly being a part of this, but then stating that they're paying too much, can't afford it, and so drop their contributions. For, you know who predominately pays for the UBI, don't you? Big Business! Let's look at that...they currently pay CEO's between 300 and 600 times the lowest wage earner in their company, because they are too full of their own self-importance, but now with the UBI, they're going to part with far more money than giving their employees a fair income instead of a pittance ,(they'd pay less than a pittance if they could, but there are laws about pittances) for now they are going to pay people that don't work at all. And this somehow makes sense to you, when they won't part with the money for anything or anybody as it is now. But they're going to fund a UBI...in your dreams. This is mutton dressed as lamb.

Enter the UBI...you can survive, but can't live well. Poverty for all. The prospect of financial poverty lies in our future...you will survive, but won't live well unless you are one of the lucky

Who knows - I guess it depends on what the definition of a happy life is? Watching endless porn videos and smoking pot until one loses one's grip on reality? Or hiking in the countryside and enjoying sunsets? These latter sources of health and peaceful joy are, as it happens, completely free.

I see that you have your fingers firmly on the pulse of the average working person, who eats take-away, possesses all the mod-cons, drives a late model car or are "trendy" and driving an SUV. All from the conditioning that our "throw away" society provides, that seems to have completely escaped your (not so) keen observations. "Just change the conditioning" I hear you say?...somehow I don't think that MacDonald's, General Electric, General Motors, Ford, Hollywood and all the other multi nationals, are about to stop advertising just because you'd like AI and for everyone to take a walk in the park for their sole source of entertainment...maybe you could trade your rose colored glasses for a joint to have on your walk in the park...you won't see things differently, but you'll be comfortably numb for a while.

Anyone trying to say AI is a good idea, either has a vested interest, or is a fool, for it bodes badly for humanity.

Lol. It's just technology - can be used for good and for bad, just like any other. Why are you using a computer? Shouldn't you be laboring on an Amish farm somewhere? ;P

Wow! It's just technology! I would never have guessed had you not told me. Gee, and I thought it was just people that didn't have any comprehension of the humanities, but spend some of their time talking about it.

It's HOW that technology is used that concerns me, and big business will use it for its labour-saving qualities and government will use it for their clandestine agencies and other agencies that spy upon the population and military applications. It's not to say that there won't be some positive applications, but the most noticeable and far-reaching will be what I mentioned...it's not as though I haven't seen good ideas perverted by government and big business before, or repeatedly, to possess this view of a negative outcome.

[Mossling]

will be used to initially create a "livable" wage, but in time, will decrease, just as wages and salaries haven't kept pace with inflation since 1977, the UBI won't either

What are you worried about then? Just use your prophetic abilities to milk the stock market so that you can amass a significant fortune with which to dominate the planet and shape it according to your preferences.

It's not to say that there won't be some positive applications, but the most noticeable and far-reaching will be what I mentioned...it's not as though I haven't seen good ideas perverted by government and big business before, or repeatedly, to possess this view of a negative outcome.

It's a wonder we're all still alive isn't it, even with entropy to contend with.

[Lozza]

Mossling,

I'd like to thank you for making my point patently clear: that the toy is more important than the people.

Your only rationale, in summation, has been conflict for all, in order to justify the technology in the context of the outcomes for the average person. An ill-conceived idea that was obviously not thought through, inviting sarcasm for your inability to see what you were doing: Your “solution” was the very fear I outlined.

You're an intelligent, articulate and educated person, yet this is your "solution" amongst your own sarcasm. And why were you sarcastic? Because, as you’ve demonstrated, you don’t actually understand the problem, especially when your solution is the very problem. I have no doubt that you possess a far better understanding of the technology than I would ever hope to have, or be interested to have. My interest is human behavior at both an individual and collective level. But just as people like me need to listen to the advice of people like you about technological issues, people like you need to hear people like me about social issues. None of us are always correct, but with a little patience and understanding of what I just outlined, between us all, we can come up with better solutions.

Let me give a simple but glaring example of what I've been trying to explain. Nuclear power. Initially designed for the sole purpose of being a weapon of mass destruction, some positives have flowed from it, ranging from nuclear medicine to electrical power. But what has been the dominant effect on the psyche of the world? Nuclear holocaust...M.A.D. mutually assured destruction; Arms races to produce nukes, costing billions upon billions that could be better spent, and my favorite, the promise of free power to the public with nuclear energy. Well, in a capitalist/materialistic society we live in, that was obviously not going to happen, so we pay more for energy rather than less, let alone for "free". Then there's the disposal of nuclear waste..one of those problems whereby we say, "we'll worry about it when the time comes". Well, the time has come and gone and it's a very real problem. And the clincher...when they tested The Bomb, they didn't know the outcome, fearing a chain reaction that would destroy the planet. But they pushed the button anyway. The fact that no chain reaction occurred is moot, as my point is that with the very real fear of the chain reaction, the button was pushed anyway. You might say that it was the military, not the scientists, that made that call, and that may also be true. But it still makes my point that the military can't be trusted with such technology either.

Other glaring examples would be the car industry, oil, gas and coal. But let’s just look at cars (I like cars). Why has it taken so long for cars to start evolving out of technology that’s over 100 years old, the internal combustion engine? First there’s the very substantial financial investment made by the car manufacturers, and it takes about 8-10 years in the planning for you to drive out of the showroom in your new car today. That’s a substantial investment of time and money, and of course, a return on that investment is expected. Fair enough. That’s before we get to introducing any changes to the next production run of another model and the retooling of the production line required, which all has to be designed, tested and then fitted, shutting down the production line. Very costly. Let alone a complete overhaul of what technologies are used, such as switching from the internal combustion motor to electric and all of the inherent problems and costs of R&D. So, there are many understandable issues surrounding change that are controlled by purse strings, not altruism.

Then there’s government. In this country, nearly 60% of the price of fuel at the bowser is State and Federal taxes. That means the government makes even more money from fuel than the oil companies, who have to explore, drill, transport, refine and transport again to the bowser. That’s a hell of a large revenue maker for government. Does something like solar offer that revenue? No, as you can’t tax sunlight, only the unit that catches and converts, which is a once only tax, not an on-going consumable like fuel. Thus, we have electricity being the preferred option for cars, as that’s easily taxed. But it doesn’t resolve pollution issues, it just changes what pollutants we are manufacturing.

History has shown that the very people we entrust this technology to, cannot be trusted. Financial motives always outweighs altruism.

AI can be no different, in fact, I consider it a Pandora’s Box, not in the immediate future, but logically, it can be the only eventual outcome.